PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL LAW: Capitalism Is Not The Same As The Free Market

What’s in a word? Well, often times…everything! In this case, understanding what ‘Capitalism‘ really is, and more importantly, where the term came from, can reveal a startling revelation: that ‘Capitalism‘ is not the same things as the free market!

Now, this is not going to be a short post, nor will it be exhaustive or easy to digest. And, no matter where you fall on the political spectrum, I can almost guarantee this post will cause you some indigestion. However, if you will stick with me, by the time I am done, I promise you will have plenty to consider and — just maybe — sound reason to change the way you understand a great deal of the propaganda in our current culture.

Let me start by proving that ‘Capitalism’ is not the same thing as the free market. We will look at their formal definitions shortly, but consider this:

[If you do not already have a firm grasp on what these terms mean, please, stop reading, click on the links and familiarize yourself with them. it is essential you understand that you understand what all three terms have in common, as well as how they are different.]

If ‘Capitalism’ means ‘free market,’ then why do we have so many different types of ‘free?’ Seriously, it may sound trite, but ask yourself what sense it makes to say ‘corrupt freedom,’ ‘government freedom‘ and/or ‘free freedom?‘ Well, if ‘Capitalism’ is the same thing as the ‘free market,’ then that is what those terms are saying: ‘corrupt free market,’ ‘government free market’ and ‘free free market.’ So, if we would bother to pay attention to what is actually being said, we would notice that there is something not right here. But what is it? Well, let’s start by looking at the definition of ‘free market:’

: an economic market or system in which prices are based on competition among private businesses and not controlled by a government

This is the free market: a place where trade is governed strictly by the people doing the trading. The government stays out of it. Except for enforcing contracts and correcting violations thereof, the government has no role in a free market. It merely acts as a referee. But those who oppose liberty oppose the free market. Now, let’s look at what ‘Capitalism’ means:

: an economic system characterized by privateor corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Now, notice that the definition of ‘Capitalism’ allows for corporate ownership. It also provides for means of control other than the people involved in the actual trading. This is why the definition says ‘mainly by.‘ So let’s apply a little basic logic to this definition and see what we get.

Governments are corporations. Capitalism allows for corporate ownership. This gives us ‘State Capitalism.’ When the government owns the means of production, this is called Communism. Hence, ‘State Capitalism’ is Communism by another word, and there is no free market in Communism.

Likewise, ‘Capitalism’ allows private or corporate ownership. Corporations are creations of government. They do not exist in the real world. If the government and those persons who own corporations fall into a corrupt arrangement with each other, you get ‘Crony Capitalism.’ This is a situation where the government allows private ownership, but retains control over the owners/corporations. This is called Fascism, and there is no freedom under Fascism.

Now for a brief aside — for those who will argue that their corporations are private property. Under Natural law, one cannot own the earth. Nor can anyone claim ownership of an idea. If you can, then I claim ownership of mathematics (to the best of my knowledge, no one has applied for a patent yet, so…). Now, I want a $0.01 royalty every time anyone makes a mathematics calculation of any type. If you are rational, you should immediately understand why this is absurd. However, there are people who — instead of seeing the absurdity — will immediately seek to find a way to do just this: patent and claim ownership of mathematics!

Now, the free market does allow for the creation of ‘civil rights, ‘ among which may be the ownership of real estate and patents. When such things are created in a way that conforms with the principles of Natural Law, they benefit the whole of society. However, when people seek to use these artificial constructions to get around Natural Law, they corrupt society (not to mention the Social Contract). This is what happens when corporations are allowed to be treated as both private property and a person.

By definition, a corporation is an artificial entity. It is created by an act of law. In a free society, the law is supposed to be a servant of the people. Therefore, anything that is created by law remains subject to the law. However, when it comes to Natural Rights — such as the right to personal property — this would be a contradiction. And since Natural Law cannot contradict, we can conclude that corporations are not and cannot be private property. They are — by definition — public creations. So the people retain just authority over corporations.

Now, it is bad enough when a society starts to treat a public creation as the personal property of one person or even a small group of people, but when they grant the status of personhood to that creation, things get even worse. Now we have the legal creation of slavery, only the owner is master of a person that does not actually exist. But this does not mean there is no damage to society. Because the owner now claims personal ownership of this imaginary person, but the imaginary person is afforded rights by the law, that owner now has a claim against the law. If we follow that further, we will find that a claim against the law is a claim against the Social Contract and everyone subject to it. In short, the corporate owner is functioning as an owner of society as a whole. What follows next is a battle between those who seek to control business privately by using the government, and those who seek to control it publicly by using government to control the corporations and their owners. There is your fight over Communism vs. Fascism. But we have one last thing to consider.

Both the corporatist and the Statist seek to control society by controlling trade. Therefore, bot see true freedom is their enemy. This is why the term ‘laissez faire’ Capitalism is used as a pejorative: it is meant to make you believe there is something wrong with it. yet, if you refer back to the definition, ‘laissez faire’ means ‘free market.’ So, in reality, they are telling you the free market is less beneficial than Communism or Fascism. This is exactly the motivation behind Bill Gates saying his biggest mistake was in not hiring a lobbyist early on: it is Gates admitting that, as soon as he ‘had his,’ he should have paid the government to keep others from taking a piece of the very pie he could not have created unless he had been free to innovate.

In short, Gates is what people like him claim they are trying to protect people from: an : “I got mine, now I’ll keep you from getting yours” villain. And now? Now Bill Gates uses the public creation of Micro Soft to fund his own personal war on humanity by pushing for the elimination of some 7 billion people! So, tell me, why do so many people support people just like him? Why can’t they see that he is the person he claims to be protecting them from? Well, in part, because he and others like him have destroyed the language, and with it, the ability of average people to see things as they really are.

But then, he and all those like him also know that the majority of us are too lazy to read through a post like this, let alone educate themselves enough to determine whether or not the things I have said but not linked to are true… 😉

ADDENDUM

The logic in this post is sound. However, as I said at the outset, it will also be difficult for many to accept. So, lest anyone get the false impression that I am advocating for or am sympathetic toward communism or fascism (which would have to be deliberately so, in my opinion), let me state this very clearly: I advocate for the free market — period! I am against all forms of forced control over others. And to those who will react with anger or insult, I say: congratulations! You have revealed your inner desire to control others!

[NOTE: I no longer think of my voice as anything special. There was a time when I believed I had something important to say, but not so much these days. I write now because I feel driven to do so. Something inside me will not let me rest until I post the pages you just read. I’d just as soon not bother anymore. It all seems like no one is listening and I do more harm than good. So I have come to trust that whatever it is driving me has all this under control. Personally, I believe it is God, but others may not. All I ask is that, if anything I write helps you, or you think it might help others in any way, please, share this page. Re-blog it, share it on FB or send the link to your friends. So long as you feel it will do more good than harm, then please, use this page however you wish. Thank you.]

Reblogged this on UZA – people's courts, forums, & tribunals and commented:
Great post, thank you; your compulsion to write is driven by spirit; and, it has a far-reaching effect as we are spirit made manifest; the physical act is merely the effect and spirit is the cause; you are the pebble, the ripple and the pond; just focusing on your faith even without action brings change; have faith; in peace

Given that we have established your collectivist bent, I am not sure why you would consider this a ‘great post.’ It argues against most everything you have advocated in your discussions with Don Ameche and myself. I am not furthering the collective here — in any of its many forms. All I have done is established that the corporation rightly remains under public control. But this does not mean that society cannot allow an individual the ‘civil right’ to treat real estate and ideas as personal property. The post merely points out how this beneficial allowance has been perverted to the gain of a powerful few. I am all in favor of co-ops, which can do the same thing as any corporation. It’s just that co-ops spread the wealth while retaining individual accountability, and that makes them an enemy of those who wish to control others. It does nothing to legitimate that control in any way. In fact, it condemns it — in all its forms.

We as a people have become lazy to the point of self enslavement. It is now too late to turn the boat around.

Picture the majority of people, 7+ billion, all on a big ship getting ready to drop off the edge of a flat earth. From time to time a few people warn the others of the impending doom but the Captain and crew serve up another free meal that promises to be even bigger and better than the last one. The few that have studied the Bible, history and understand mans human nature know the folly at hand and are now readying for their departure prior to the last 7 years of human existence. Global warming is an understatement.

The reformation of the Christian Church and these economic principals, no matter how ineptly applied by man, worked to bring the majority of man out of bondage to one another. In the end however, we have come full circle and cast the ships compass into the abyss while we allow the wind to take us too and fro with in our guest to find Atlantis.

It’s good to know, based on a true relationship with Jesus Christ, our spirit being, will depart the ship prior to reaching the edge. May we continue to minister to as many who will listen and reserve a place in the lifeboat. No ticket required as the price has already been paid by the only true King to have ever lived as a man among us.

John 3:16King James Version (KJV)

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Yes. I actually read that in preparing for this post. Contrary to what some would believe, I do not oppose the free market. In fact, I pine for it. That is part of our founders’ key to liberty and, as you rightly point out, the elevation of the majority of humanity OUT of the throws of poverty. But corporations have nothing to do with the free market. It is why our founders did not like or allow them. They prefered charter companies, and when they were allowed, they had a narrow focus, short lifetime and remained under the control of the people through the law. We need to return to this understanding and, if we ever manage to do so, we’ll find that all those who want to work and take responsibility for their own lives/actions will benefit from it (just as Scripture says we will). But those who seek to make easy gains off the backs of others and/or avoid taking responsibility for their own actions… Well, they will always look for ways around God’s Law — just as they always have.

But then, it may already be too late for the world. I fear time has all but run out, which is why I am right there with you: rejoicing in the fact that I have already accepted that ticket to salvation. Now I just hope that, somehow, I can convince at least 1 other person to accept it, as well. Just one, and I’ll count that blessing, but more would be all the better 🙂

You’re parsing words and skewed definitions that have been hijacked by tyranny. “Capitalism,” as it has now come to be known, is not truly capitalism at all. It’s something else. Crony capitalism is not capitalism at all, and i usually recommend simply calling it cronyism or crony statism.

Your thesis is relevant only if you accept the now-polluted and subverted language the statists have left us with. The true, original, pure form and meaning of capitalism is the economic system that naturally arises when people are free to enter into exchange of commerce as they see fit.

Essentially, your post here–while well-meaning–misses the mark. It’s not that “capitalism” is different than the “free market” because “state capitalism, etc…”, rather those modified “capitalisms” are not capitalism at all, and are propaganda terms employed to denigrate true capitalism and freedom.

I do not think that I am the one working from a bad definition. You say “Capitalism” is a natural result of free exchange, but this is impossible. “Capitalism” depends on a collective structure to raise that capital, and that collective is only made possible by an artificial construction we call a Charter or Corporation. You see, you have excused another of the qualifiers for “Capitalism” so that it fits your needs: Laissez Faire Capitalism. Laisse Faire Capitalism is just as much a threat to liberty as any of the others you mentioned and dismissed, yet it is “free,” the way you demand ‘true Capitalism’ must be. It is a threat because, being an artificial collective and not an individual, it has the power of a government, but the rights and liberties of a person. We need only look to George Soros or David Rockefeller to see how this destroys the Free Market. Whereas the TRUE Free Market does not destroy itself because no one person can become powerful enough to do so.